speculation again. if I signed up to Ferarri for a training program and pay him for it, does that make me a drug cheat?

yes ferrari is dodgy
yes lance is dodgy
yes there is evidence to show lance was ferrari's client
but where is the evidence of drugs?

You haven't actually read USADA's 202 page summary, have you? Not that I would blame you. It's a big document that most people probably don't care to devote the time it would take to examine. I freely admit that suggesting you haven't read the document is just speculation on my part.

i know, but if lance was to defend himself, he could easily get as many witnesses to say he is clean...
also none of the witnesses are credible, they are all drug cheats and liars. none of them admitted to cheating until USADA offered them a deal.

i know, but if lance was to defend himself, he could easily get as many witnesses to say he is clean...

Logic above does not work. Since no one was with Lance 365x24 no one can reasonably testify that he didn't dope. All they can state is that they saw no doping while they were in his presence.

Originally Posted by horsey24

also none of the witnesses are credible, they are all drug cheats and liars. none of them admitted to cheating until USADA offered them a deal.

26 witnesses, some of whom are not even riders (therefore claim of drug cheat is irrelevant to them). All liars you say, even with a mountain of corroborating evidence, but Armstrong is telling the truth? It actually works against you to provide posts that defy reason.

Not only is he a drug head, but the spin cycles that he has put his name on stink. They are too small for any one over 6'. It's very frustrating. Even if I was inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, one workout on his spin cycles would change my mind.

does anyone honestly believe any pro road racer is clean? Or any professional athlete at all? If you do, do also believe in the tooth fairy?

Yeah, I do. I believe most, probably the vast majority of professional athletes, are clean. Not so much in pro cycling, sure, but that only accounts for a tiny percentage of pro athletes worldwide. Anyway, the "they're all at it" argument is a council of despair used by those who seek to excuse the cheating. Cynicism as a mask for supporting the rotten status quo.

Not so sure about the tooth fairy, someone's going to have to kill one and dissect it before I'm convinced.

I wonder if he kept his drugs in his coach purse
Saved by the spambot again

Sorry, that was just me playing with my sock puppet account again. Trying to get a job as a Coach outlet store sales rep, figuring it would help me cause if I show them how industrious I am spamming forums. j/k I'm sure a mod with admin rights to this forum will clean them out soon. Spammers have been coming in hard lately.

Admittedly I can't recall exactly, but it's been a lot of years. Certainly within the time frame that Armstrong has been racing, and I'm 99.9% sure within the range of years that his string of seven TdF exploits falls within.

Admittedly I can't recall exactly, but it's been a lot of years. Certainly within the time frame that Armstrong has been racing, and I'm 99.9% sure within the range of years that his string of seven TdF exploits falls within.

I pulled upit doping rules (UCI).....it does mention it is a riders resposiblitiy to ensure that no PDE enters his body.....

The rules refer to an update that occurred in 2004 to bring the rules in-line with Olympic requirements....

I doubt the older rules are easily available......but those rules should be used to judge somebody competing at that time.

I pulled upit doping rules (UCI).....it does mention it is a riders resposiblitiy to ensure that no PDE enters his body.....

The rules refer to an update that occurred in 2004 to bring the rules in-line with Olympic requirements....

Yes, the UCI came into compliance with WADA code in 2004 otherwise all cycling events were going to be nixed from the Olympics. Cycling - via the UCI - was the last and final holdout among all Olympic sports to agree to the WADA code. What I cannot recall with any certainty is whether there was an alternate, but still enforceable, anti-doping agreement tied to licenses and the license application process prior to 2004. I'm pretty certain there was, but not 100% positive. I didn't really pay close attention, because I had no qualms about signing off on my agreement to any anti-doping compliance measures and rules.

Originally Posted by jeffscott

I doubt the older rules are easily available......but those rules should be used to judge somebody competing at that time.

The WADA code and rules are retroactive. The rider signs off on their agreement to the WADA code during the licensing process. If the rider has a "shady" past and doesn't want to be subject to retroactive processes, they have the option to not apply for their license. Armstrong chose to apply. Case closed.